question for UK & EU boxing fans

Techliam - So if the WBA was seen as an American title (which it really was until the 1976 coup) and the BBBofC & EBU helped launch the WBC, with the BBBofC president being elected the first WBC president, and the WBC even being formed in the fist place because the WBA was seen as an American title, was the WBC seen as a class above the WBA in the UK from 63-76 or were they always viewed as equals? I don't view the WBA having equal claim as the WBC for a few reasons. Historically, in the pre-WBA/WBC/IBF/WBO era, the most recognized bodies were the IBU, NYSAC, NBA and NSC. The NBA is now the WBA and the IBU (as EBU), NYSAC and NSC (as BBBofC) for the WBC. So the WBC is 3/4 of the classic world championships and the WBA is 1/4. But to take it a step further, the WBA split off into the IBF and WBO. So really, if you unify the WBA/IBF/WBO, you're really still only 25% of the historical world championship, with the WBC maintaining 75% of the lineage. Leaving the WBA with only 8.33%. 75% > 8.33%. It's not even close. That's one of the reasons why I view the WBC as the most historic organization, even if I hate the alphabelt system and want PBC to kill it off. You're incorrect about the BBBofC. It is one of the WBC continental federations and is clearly listed as such here: http://wbcboxing.com/wbceng/images/organization/0.jpg I have claimed that the WBC belt has historically been the most prestigious and lucrative belt in boxing. The facts support that premise. Look at the average purse for a WBC champion vs a non-WBC champion. Look at the percentage of the most lucrative fights in boxing history that were the WBC title vs a non-WBC title. Is there really any dispute that the WBC has done the best job of catering to the biggest stars and making sure their belt is the most lucrative? Yes, legitimate world-class fighters held the WBO title, which helped establish the struggling organization. But it doesn't change the fact that the belt was the easiest to win because it wasn't recognized elsewhere and that Europe basically propped up a new organization so they could have a bunch of world champions. I don't blame Warren for doing it. Don King and Arum had so many of the belts locked up. It allowed Warren to have his own playground and then others followed suit. why u so mad tho, just say what u wanna say b b

Techliam - So if the WBA was seen as an American title (which it really was until the 1976 coup) and the BBBofC & EBU helped launch the WBC, with the BBBofC president being elected the first WBC president, and the WBC even being formed in the fist place because the WBA was seen as an American title, was the WBC seen as a class above the WBA in the UK from 63-76 or were they always viewed as equals? I don't view the WBA having equal claim as the WBC for a few reasons. Historically, in the pre-WBA/WBC/IBF/WBO era, the most recognized bodies were the IBU, NYSAC, NBA and NSC. The NBA is now the WBA and the IBU (as EBU), NYSAC and NSC (as BBBofC) for the WBC. So the WBC is 3/4 of the classic world championships and the WBA is 1/4. But to take it a step further, the WBA split off into the IBF and WBO. So really, if you unify the WBA/IBF/WBO, you're really still only 25% of the historical world championship, with the WBC maintaining 75% of the lineage. Leaving the WBA with only 8.33%. 75% > 8.33%. It's not even close. That's one of the reasons why I view the WBC as the most historic organization, even if I hate the alphabelt system and want PBC to kill it off. You're incorrect about the BBBofC. It is one of the WBC continental federations and is clearly listed as such here: http://wbcboxing.com/wbceng/images/organization/0.jpg I have claimed that the WBC belt has historically been the most prestigious and lucrative belt in boxing. The facts support that premise. Look at the average purse for a WBC champion vs a non-WBC champion. Look at the percentage of the most lucrative fights in boxing history that were the WBC title vs a non-WBC title. Is there really any dispute that the WBC has done the best job of catering to the biggest stars and making sure their belt is the most lucrative? Yes, legitimate world-class fighters held the WBO title, which helped establish the struggling organization. But it doesn't change the fact that the belt was the easiest to win because it wasn't recognized elsewhere and that Europe basically propped up a new organization so they could have a bunch of world champions. I don't blame Warren for doing it. Don King and Arum had so many of the belts locked up. It allowed Warren to have his own playground and then others followed suit.

ZMM - Thanks for the insight. If the WBA gave up on bothering to have a European champion, that really shows that the WBC's European champion is the only one taken seriously. Does the IBF even bother anymore with their East/West Europe championship? Kafkod - I don't know where you get your information from, but your post is full of inaccuracies. Back before the WBA was the NBA, the EBU was known as the IBU in the early 1900s. The name changed to EBU in the 1940s and they were one of the founders of the WBC in 1960s. I have absolutely no idea why you think the EBU didn't exist yet in the 1960s, especially when it had already existed for *50* years. Where the hell are you getting your info from?!? The WBC was founded by many parties, including the president of Mexico, the NYSAC, the EBU, the BBBofC and others. The president of the BBBofC was elected as the first president of the WBC. The BBBofC and EBU were founders of the WBC and to this day continue to be WBC federations. So if the WBC British title is considered the real British title and the WBC European title is considered the real European title, why wouldn't that make the WBC world title the real world title in the eyes of the fans that recognize the BBBofC and EBU as the real British and European titles? Dirk - I like the logical progression as well and wish we had a similar system here in the US. But what's strange to me is that you guys have one specific recognized British title, one specific recognized European title, but then suddenly when it's time to go for the world title, you guys recognize FOUR world champions, even though the BBBofC and EBU specifically created the WBC. British and European titles are really stepping stone achievements. It's good experience for a title fight and often it's 15 ish or so fights when people go for it. When it comes to the World titles, 4 are chosen due to it being a lot harder to get. Promoters will go for any that they can gain. Casual fans do nto understand the difference TBH. The WBO and WBA I believe were not as well respected world wide, but Brits didn't care.

The BBBC has had no realistic rival - the Lonsdale belt is now, and has been, a cultural sport icon here, at least on a domestic level. This was firmly established way before the WBC came to light. The EBU you could argue much the same - it had a big presence around the time of the NBA and NYSAC, offering Europe’s best on the world title stage. The NBA's (and later, the WBA’s) equivalent of a European championship lacked the foundation and recognition the EBU/IBU had for a long time - on top of the fact the NBA was seen as an American title. The WBC on the other hand, has always had a major, legitimate rival in the WBA - on a much different level from say a rivalry between the EBU/EBA. The WBA has just as many, if not more, major claims to being the most prestigious title as the WBC has. Why would fans differentiate between them? Because the EBU and BBBC were founding members? I don’t see why fans would care about that. Perhaps they would if the EBU/BBBC didn’t recognise the WBA, but they wisely chose to. But thats purely hypothetical. Whilst I don’t agree Europe ‘single-handedly’ put the WBO on the map, labelling a fighter is a world champion is a lot different than claiming someone is British or European champion - legitimate world-class fighters held the WBO title, thus giving it legitimacy, and they weren’t all European. Yes the WBC consists of 9 continental federations, but the BBBofC is not one of them. It is a founding member though, but it is not exclusive to the WBC and never has been. The same for the CBC (Commonwealth). The EBU is a WBC continental federation, but even then it’s relationship with the WBC can be overstated - it works with all 4 major sanctioning bodies, despite the WBC giving EBU champions favourable rankings. You’re right, it was a poor choice of words on my part. You haven’t claimed the WBC is the only world title that matters, but you’ve claimed these gems instead, which is what I meant to say: wilder is the WBC champion. the belt the public respects the most the WBC is the clear leader. History has shown the WBC belt to be the most prestigious and lucrative championship BELT in boxing. the belt that has been the most prestigious and lucrative throughout boxing history. Wladimir was never the undisputed champion. He won three of the four recognized titles, but was missing the most important one. You still haven’t provided any evidence for these claims. Like you say, no-ones entitled to their own facts. I knew this thread would be pro-WBC as soon as I opened it. I just hope Deontay Wilder isn’t affecting this view, especially as you’ve admitted your support for PBC.

Boxing died in the uk and was revived but it is a casual sport here, for example, they can't even tell brook is a fraud who calls out big names and then ducks them...then he goes on a pr campaign to think everyone including isis is ducking him the uk really only care about their local champ, what hearn feeds to them via sky sports and world champs you can an awful champ, take brook for example, but hearn and co would make people believe mayweather retired to duck him Damn that's crazy. you guys think the same of chunky degale?

Techliam - Addiction to the WBC? Not sure that word means what you think it means. I've stated many times that I hope PBC takes over and rids the sport of the sanctioning bodies, including the WBC. The facts don't support your narrative. My logic is very clear. The BBBofC is respected in the UK as the one true British title and the EBU is respected as the one true European title. Those organizations founded the WBC and continue to be WBC continental federations to this day, which is why BBBofC and EBU champions quickly move up the WBC rankings. So my question was simply why did an area that had the discipline to stick to one national champion and one continental champion not also reject multiple world champions? If you don't know the answer, that's fine, but it hardly seems fair to aggressively attack me for asking a straight forward question. Did you have a bad day? Couldn't get laid? Boss gave you a hard time? What's the real issue here? I agree that most European champions don't fight for the WBC title. It's usually the hardest to get your hands on and for whatever reason, Europeans have always been the most eager to seek a "world" title at all costs, even if it's a new organization not recognized by the rest of the world. European promoters single handedly put the WBO on the map. It was the easiest title to win since it was being shunned everywhere else. I'm just wondering why British fans accepted Warren's ruse when at the domestic and continental level, they'd resisted similar nonsense. The BBBofC is not completely separate of the WBC. The WBC is comprised of nine continental federations, two of which are the BBBofC and EBU (which are also founding members). That is what makes it a legitimate "world" championship, the African Boxing Union, Asian Boxing Council, British Boxing Board of Control, Central American Boxing Federation, CIS & Slovenic Boxing Bureau, European Boxing Union, North American Boxing Federation, Oriental & Pacific Boxing Federation and SOuth Continent Boxing Federation all working in tandem to govern the sport locally, and crown world and international champions together. I'm not disputing that the BBBofC allows other titles, simply wondering why fans were so willing to accept minor titles such as the WBO before anybody else. I've never argued that the WBC is the only title that matters. All four titles are generating revenue, so clearly people think they matter. Yet another example of you creating your own facts, which you also hilariously accuse me of. Please oh please tell me one thing I've stated as fact in this discussion that isn't true. Prove or retract. Very easy to throw out baseless accusations, but it makes you a coward if you can't back them up. I'll wait.

Oh wow, 'saint laurent' trying to justify to himself his downright strange addiction with the WBC. Shocker... So, whats the logic this time? The EBU is (now) most respected European title, and as the EBU was one of many founding members of the WBC in the 1960s, the WBC is the most legitimate title now? Or should be in the eyes of Europe? Most people have enough intelligence to separate the organisations, and their belts, despite prior 'affiliation'. Most European champions don't even fight for the WBC world title. European champions who have progressed onto world honours have fought for all 4 four titles, showing how the current link between the EBU and WBC isn't as strong as you're making it out to be. The BBBofC is completely separate to the WBC. They work with all four organisations (quite a lot, btw). As is the Commonwealth title, which you've conveniently skipped. The most 'prestigious' is the Lonsdale belt because of its history and cultural impact... at least on a boxer's personal level - however it doesn't mean it's the most legitimate or important in the same fashion. The champion decides the worth of the belt - the exact same logic you should apply to the current WBC world titles. You're trying so hard to argue the WBC is the only title that matters. But you're only entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.

D-Mize - How am I looking into it too much? Seems like a reasonable question. If you're too young or don't know the history of the sport well enough to answer, so be it, but maybe somebody here will know the answer. There are parts of the world that refused to recognize the IBF and WBO. I'm just curious why the UK has had the discipline to ignore multiple British or European champions, but then at the world level, they accept everything. Hell, the WBO would have never gained recognition if it wasn't for UK & EU promoters putting them on the map. Dirk - Didn't Khan win the commonwealth title? So you're saying he skipped the British title and went straight to the commonwealth title? Which is more prestigious?

can you elaborate on that? i'm not very familiar with khan's early career. thanks. Khan skipped over the British title because he thought he was going to break Naz's record for youngest world champion. Then he got annihilated by Prescott.

Only person who seemed to think he was too big for it in recent years was Khan and we all saw how that went :lol1: can you elaborate on that? i'm not very familiar with khan's early career. thanks.

ZMM - Thanks for the insight. If the WBA gave up on bothering to have a European champion, that really shows that the WBC's European champion is the only one taken seriously. Does the IBF even bother anymore with their East/West Europe championship? Kafkod - I don't know where you get your information from, but your post is full of inaccuracies. Back before the WBA was the NBA, the EBU was known as the IBU in the early 1900s. The name changed to EBU in the 1940s and they were one of the founders of the WBC in 1960s. I have absolutely no idea why you think the EBU didn't exist yet in the 1960s, especially when it had already existed for *50* years. Where the hell are you getting your info from?!? The WBC was founded by many parties, including the president of Mexico, the NYSAC, the EBU, the BBBofC and others. The president of the BBBofC was elected as the first president of the WBC. The BBBofC and EBU were founders of the WBC and to this day continue to be WBC federations. So if the WBC British title is considered the real British title and the WBC European title is considered the real European title, why wouldn't that make the WBC world title the real world title in the eyes of the fans that recognize the BBBofC and EBU as the real British and European titles? Dirk - I like the logical progression as well and wish we had a similar system here in the US. But what's strange to me is that you guys have one specific recognized British title, one specific recognized European title, but then suddenly when it's time to go for the world title, you guys recognize FOUR world champions, even though the BBBofC and EBU specifically created the WBC.

I always like to see UK boxers go the traditional route of winning the British, Commonwealth and European titles before going to challenge for a world title. I thought Joshua might skip it but he's got two of them under his belt now. Only person who seemed to think he was too big for it in recent years was Khan and we all saw how that went :lol1:

Boxing died in the uk and was revived but it is a casual sport here, for example, they can't even tell brook is a fraud who calls out big names and then ducks them...then he goes on a pr campaign to think everyone including isis is ducking him the uk really only care about their local champ, what hearn feeds to them via sky sports and world champs you can an awful champ, take brook for example, but hearn and co would make people believe mayweather retired to duck him Everything you wote there is wrong! Boxing never died in the UK, Kel Brook is not heavily hyped or promoted here, and most UK fans regard Eddie Hearn as a con-man who is out to rip us off. In other words, a typical boxing promoter.

it seems that regional titles are far more respected in europe than they are in north america. BBBofC and EBU titles seem to be taken seriously with fighters having a logical ladder to climb on their way to the world title. with the BBBofC and EBU being founders of the WBC and to this day, the WBC's continental federations in the UK & europe, why did fans ever accept the idea of four world champions instead of viewing the WBC as the true world championship, as created by and endorsed by the BBBofC and EBU? Britain and France were the only European countries which helped create the WBC. The EBU didn't even exist back then. The WBC was founded in Mexico with the aim of promoting Mexican and Mexican American fighters, and is still based in Mexico. There is no reason at all for UK and European fans to view the WBC as "our" organisation.

lfc19titles - how did fans in the UK view the EBA and how do they view WBO Europe? ted kid - so if the BBBofC controls the lonsdale belt, which dates back to 1909, and the WBC is the world body the BBBofC helped create, why don't british fans view the WBC as the one true recognized world title? The WBO europe belt is considered the same as the minor belts (intercontential, International) it has far less respect than the EBU belt nobody calls WBO europe belt holder european champion

lfc19titles - how did fans in the UK view the EBA and how do they view WBO Europe? ted kid - so if the BBBofC controls the lonsdale belt, which dates back to 1909, and the WBC is the world body the BBBofC helped create, why don't british fans view the WBC as the one true recognized world title?

The Lonsdale belt (British championship) is a magnificent belt, hand crafted since 1909. It's a considered an honor to hold this title and you have to defend it successfully three times to win it outright. Still to this day it's held in a very high regard.

it seems that regional titles are far more respected in europe than they are in north america. BBBofC and EBU titles seem to be taken seriously with fighters having a logical ladder to climb on their way to the world title. with the BBBofC and EBU being founders of the WBC and to this day, the WBC's continental federations in the UK & europe, why did fans ever accept the idea of four world champions instead of viewing the WBC as the true world championship, as created by and endorsed by the BBBofC and EBU? Boxing died in the uk and was revived but it is a casual sport here, for example, they can't even tell brook is a fraud who calls out big names and then ducks them...then he goes on a pr campaign to think everyone including isis is ducking him the uk really only care about their local champ, what hearn feeds to them via sky sports and world champs you can an awful champ, take brook for example, but hearn and co would make people believe mayweather retired to duck him